The section of Cohen’s essay that I found interesting and almost shocking was the part titled “Sex and the (Not So) Single Scholar”. This section opens with Cohen’s discussion the gender of Rabbis and how this is complicated. He clarifies by saying that they’re often gendered male and heterosexual ” in relation to the Torah with which they want to have sex each day as if it were the first day. They want to penetrate Torah. They lust after Torah” (68). This line struck me because I never considered the relationship between a Rabbi and the Torah to be a sexual one just like how I would not think of the relationship between a Priest and the Bible to be a sexual one. Cohen continues by classifying how the woman in a Sage’s life is “always the “Other” woman. Torah is of course, the only object of desire for the Sages. When there is conflict between the Sage’s desire for Torah and the Sage’s desire for his woman, death can result. Loving desire in the rabbinic eco-system, it seems is not a renewable resource” (69). I don’t know what to do with this line at the moment. I understand how the Sage would hold the Torah above all else, and have it be what they care most about. I also think that it is good that the Sage can have a women, that there can be two things they desire because I have seen this limitation be a source of conflict in the church growing up. I also see how this view can further complicate a women’s role in Judaism and feminist Jewish studies if there is a view of women being the “other” woman in certain situations. Despite these understandings I still find these two lines shocking, particularly the part about conflict leading to death and the sexual aspect to the relationship with Torah. This is a sort of incomplete thought because I do not yet have a full understanding.